Bridgerton Season 4 Secrets Hidden in Season 3 

Apparently women could inherit titles in scotland

Most of these werent easter eggs. But the ball reference definitely was

They have changed many things from the book, but this one is too excessive.

​@@PremierePeek​ Can someone please explain this a bit more to me? I've not read the books, so I'm going from what I know off the show... I thought Francesca married John?, so why would she be involved in a lesbian relationship with this Michaela? Eloise gets into the carriage arm amd arm with her, so wouldn't it make more sense for those two to be together? Also, the producer wants to include the LGBTQ+ but the show already does that with Benedict (who's storyline bores me quite frankly), so why push another, especially onto Francesca? I'm so lost on this.

@@kyote1089 to explain the importance on the storyline : john dies in the book while they are in Scotland (idk how many times after they moved) and so Francesca becomes closer to michael (or michaela in the serie) , they eventually marry. Francesca would be gay if they follow the story of the book , that is why its a big change . Unnecessary in my opinion, we don’t really need more gay representations and in this case it feels forced. I agree with you that they already included lgbt+ characters with ben and the guy he met .

@@jodenise894 Thank you so much!

The whole thing doesn't add up. Because in the book John dies after 2 years and she miscarries the baby she carried for him. Later on she marries Michael who inherits his lordship. She then has two children for Michael. So if she's going to hook up with a woman how is she going to have two kids?. They should have made their own show and not use these books because they're skipping around and that going by what is in the books.

Benedict's story line pissed me off too. Just follow the damn books!

Books are always better than their movies. I haven't read these books yet, so that gives me something to look forward to.

Me too.

@@Armylady74 I'm less mad about his now because people have been talking about his sexuality since season 1. But Francesca's story line seriously, these books are not fantasy, they are fiction. they have to be plausible during the time they are set in. it's regency era and women in England could not own property decades after John dies. Fran, and Michaela would be homeless. Michael, on the other hand is the next heir after John, and he allows Fran to remain Countess, and lady of the house for years before he marries her. That sounds more of a happy ending to me than just lesbian sex scenes for half or whole of a season.

@@madmartagan100forreal

There is plenty of lazy writing by the showrunner's team in Season 3. But lazy writing is not the issue in Season 4. Rather, it is the deliberate upending of a beautiful story in order to service an agenda. They're going to need 2 years just to make the Michaela/Francesca narrative work. If that is what they wanted all along, then why even bother having Francesca marry John. I think that is why people are upset. Changing Michael to Mikayla is the worst kind of bait and switch. And the showrunner admits the only reason they are doing this is to advance their agenda. It has nothing to do with advancing any legitmate themes or improving the narrative. The showrunner likes the Francesca character and has decreed that she best fits her (the showrunner's agenda" and everybody else b e d*mned.

Benedict having a bisexual relationship in private during the regency period wouldn’t affect the book’s timeline. What I object to is making Michael into Michaela. That kind of relationship would not be approved of during that time period especially for a woman. I don’t see why the new runners of season 3 and 4 have to go SO far from the book’s storyline. I’m not sure I want to continue watching a show that I have loved watching. 😢

Apparently, Netflix/Shondaland have established an entirely new canon just for the series. So it doesn't matter what's in the book.

@@laurawoods7867 The more this debate continues, I find myself getting angrier. I know it's just a book and a Netflix series. But it's the principle of the matter. When we all caught on to what the showrunner(s) were doing, it was said: "Michael/Michaela is the same thing. The writers studied the matter and concluded anything Michael did Michaela can do. Oh? I had to think about this and proceeded to order the books and start reading for myself. I am in the middle of Book 1. But I as I think on the matter, I am realizing no, they didn't just genderswap. They destroyed a beloved and important character. That is if their intent is to give a happily ever ending to Francesca and Michaela. If they give that relationship a happy for now during Francesca's "mourning period" then, the Francesca Michael story could pick up again. Maybe. In the series they didn't just introduce Michaela. They also undermined Francesca and John by insinuating she was going about blindly, thinking she was heteroosexual and then meeting Michaela she "awakened" to her authentic queer identity. Apparently, this is called "compulsory heterosexuality." She behaves as a heterosexual because she was programmed that way. So meeting Michaela reset her sexual orientation default settings. This gives me a headache just reading this. They spent all of their creative talents twisting an otherwise straightforward storyline to fit a narrative they are determined to put forth. They know full well people, even people who haven't read the book, will resist. Then to add insult to injury they undermine John and Francesca by wasting our time with their quiet love story, lovely as it is by showing Francesca's underwhelming reaction to the wedding kiss. "See! See!" They say. They don't have a "real" love story. They love each other as friends. Really? There is a growing contingent of people who are delighted that the ultra feminine Francesca is suddenly not we all thought she was. We are dull and stupid because we don't understand that the greatest love story of all is between Francesca and Michaela, who is really really gorgeous, they say. This is nuts! Then they get mad and defensive if you ask why not make Eloise gay? The entire fandom, new and old, can see television series Eloise is coded gay. She's not gay/queer in the book, but they coded her queer in the series. But they don't want her now, and think they are doing us a favor by not changing her storyline. But we are all supposed to get on board with one of the most popular Bridgerton couples (at least in the book that now doesn't matter anymore until it does) being sabotaged. It only makes sense if you accept that the showrunners can do whatever they want and when they want.Oh, and don't even suggest they could have just come up with an original sapphic romance to fulfill their deepest desire to have a queer Bridgerton romance. Would not that have a been a much better service to the queer audience: give them an original storyline that represents them? Perish the thought! Lastly, now that they have triumphantly pulled a gender switcheroo and we now have Michaela instead of Michael, Michaela as a woman suddenly is free from the desires most women want. Right. Wouldn't she want her own children? Yeah, yeah, yeah. They can change the script so John and Francesca have children before his "demise." Or maybe they completely re-write Francesca so that she becomes like Eloise and doesn't want children anymore. But what about Michaela? To boot this is a black Michaela. What about this great experiment that expects members of the black aristocracy to procreate? Isn't that why dear Lady Danbury was groomed to be the wife of the hideous Lord Danbury since age 3? So they all are supposed to be okay with this Francesca Michaela situation? The showrunners don't even pay attention their own canon. Oh, well, that's why everyone is going to Scotland. Scotland is a great hiding place, I guess. Maybe the showrunners will come up with regency era ivf? Why not? But we are all homophobes because we say they messed up a good story with twisted nonsense.

​@@gems3604she did not say that about the agenda. She said that she chose Fran because she is most similar to the showrunner and reminds her of herself. I also dont like the switch but there is no reason to lie about what the showrunner has said.

Lets wait and see what's season 4 got for us

Eloyse has a beautiful book! Keep it how it is!!!!

​@@sunshinegirl5229 one of the few people I have seen to want her story to stay the same. Most rankings have her book at or near the bottom.

​@reading1713 I want her book to stay as truthful as possible. Her book is my second favorite, and Sir Phillip is my favorite love interest.

@@reading1713 iI like her book!!! A bit like " The nanny"😉wonderful cute, funny, typical Eloise from the series 😉 Could be adaptet into such a cute series! I'm looking forward to that!❤️😉

Woke patrol 😂 forreaaaaal

I have seen straight couples doing the same to make people feel uncomfortable.

I have seen straight couples do the same to make folks uncomfortable. Its like ok great, but why dont y'all get a room?

@@reading1713 Either way, They don't get a room, because they want to get people's reaction. that's the reason why they do it.

@@aaronmicahzamora9249 I have a feeling this is already in the cards. I would be surprised if they don’t.

We should still here from lady Whistlesdown, the timeline is of Francesca's story 4 years after John's death and of course when Colin just returns from Greece. If you have read the books . So we should still hear from Julie Andrews during Benedicts Romance , 😊 Pen did write the news column 3 times a week so we should get to hear more ., I hope 😊❤

No, they should stick to the outline of the book...

​@@pmclaughlin4111are you a bot

But what's done is irreversible

SPOILERS: ... ... ... ... in the books francesca and john deeply love eachother, she gets pregnant, he dies shortly after their marriage and francesca is devistated which results in losing the baby. she is so strucken by grief that she needs multiple years to think about moving on. she deeply wishes to have children so she decides to enter the marriage market again. michael sterling is her husband's cousin/best friend, he inherits everything after john's death because they have no male children... he fell in love with francesca the minute he saw her for the first time, never acted on it because of his deep love for his cousin. francesca did never see michael as a potential love interest until way after john died and even then both of them struggle so much to let themselves love eachother because of how guilty they feal. this book depicts themes of infertility, loss, grief, second chance love, etc. they decided to change the storyline to a same sex couple because the showrunner interpreted francescas shyness as queerness. she "saw herself in her" - which i personally think is not the job of a showrunner and completely besides the themes of her storyline because a) it completely devalues the love she has for her 1. husband AND her big point about "not all love looks the same and needs to be passionate and full of drama" (i mean why bring that up at all if it turns out she's just gay and her statement is untrue) b) it completely takes out the themes of infertility and her fear of never having children, which speaks to a LOT of women and made them love her story c) in my opinion it's just lazy, self-centred writing that has nothing to do with her character, her storyline but everything to do with "it's 2024, we have to make it gay in order to be talked about". in short: i really think they screwed up this season.

@@erato_90 brilliant. You have done well to explain this. I vote you as Showrunner!

@@Kerri6024 haha, never said i could do a better job 😂

@@erato_90 THANK YOU! From everything I've heard now, I absolutely agree with you! Why does she need to be gay if the show has already covered that demographic with Benedict? (Who's whole storyline, imo, is pointless. There's zero substance to it, and inserting his mostly s3x scene into the show breaks up the continuity and importance of the other's storylines, imo.) I'm on the fence whether I'm looking forward to S4 or not. 🤷‍♀️

​​​​@@kyote1089 so out of 8 children a few polyamorous love scenes with no emotional connection is covering gay relationships in your mind? Incredible. I was actually really looking forward to Michael with the whole fertility storyline as it was in the books but the more I read the comments of folks who dislike the change as well the more I want them to keep the Michaela switch because a lot of y'all are barely hiding your feelings of hatred for queer folks. I loved the idea of a quiet neurodivergent love story. A second chance love story, that addresses infertility struggles. That is an important story to tell and it is a disservice to instead of arguing for the positives in that story you are demonstrating your dislike of queer people . Honestly it suggests that you dont trust in the positives of the original storyline itself.

The knit ones? I thought they were a bit odd as well.

No they should stick with the overall arc of the book...

The whole bisexual and lesbian theme is forced and distasteful in this story! Just because "sensitisation" is in fashion these days, or because someone might be personally interested in the subject, doesn't mean it should be forced on us! It was acceptable in the Queen story, but not in Bridgerton! Julia Quinn is a big disappointment to me! She seems to do everything for the money!

Nobody is gay, please! Its a written book series .I don't get it why the lgbtq agenda needs to be pleased ....take books where it's already in it....!!!!

Certainly, they won't make such a move, given that the introduction of Michaela has already backfired

I 💯 agree with you.The LGBTQ I agenda is forced on us.I think Benedict should have been the only pansexual Bridgerton.We don't need another queer characte😢😢.​@@katalinbudai57